1 2025:CGHC:55208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2063 of 2025 1 - Dwarika Prasad Chandrakar S/o Late Punitram Chandrakar Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 14, In front Of Punjab National Bank, Jhalap, P.S. Patewa, Tehsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Police Patewa, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Manoj Paranjape, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judgment on Board 12/11/2025 By this appeal under Section 14(A)(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”) read with Section 482 of the BNSS the appellant has assailed the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Special 2 Judge (SC/ST Act) Mahasamund whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail preferred in connection with Crime No. 141/2025 registered at police station Patewa, Mahasamund for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1)(n) and 3(1)(/k) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2015 was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein is posted as In charge Principal at Government Higher Secondary School Nartora. It is alleged that on 30.08.2025, during a staff meeting, the appellant allegedly abused the complainant, who is a member of the Scheduled caste, by calling her “Bevkoof” (stupid) and further allegedly insulted her using her caste name in his chamber. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by the victim, FIR was registered as aforementioned. 3. Contention of learned Senior counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to work related disputes and prior complaints against the complainant’s conduct and dereliction of duties. The appellant had on the day of the incident, issued a formal note listing 21 points of concern pertaining to the complainant’s conduct which resulted in animosity. The departmental inquiry, constituted by three senior officers, has exonerated the appellant and found the allegations as baseless. The departmental inquiry conducted by a committee of senior eduction officers, who examined 19 witnesses, conclusively found the allegations baseless and exonerated the appellant from any wrongdoing. The police investigation into the complaint has concluded and a closure report has been submitted, 3 which is pending consideration before the competent court. The appellant apprehends arrest because if the closure report is not accepted, he may be arrested leading to the present appeal for anticipatory bail. 4. He submits that the requisite intent to humiliate on caste grounds, as contemplated under Section 3(i)(v) of the Act, is absent in the record. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court notably Masumsha Hasanasha Musalam Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2000 SC 1876), which stipulates that the act must be on account of the victim’s caste to attract penal provisions. 5. He further submits that the judicial scrutiny under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and 482 BNSS is permissible where prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence are not disclosed. The statutory bar under Section 18 is not absolute and should not be construed to nullify the court’s power to grant anticipatory bail when the complaint appears mala fide. Lastly, he submits that the appellant undertakes to cooperate with the investigation, abide by conditions and ensure presence during trial, emphasizing no risk of absconding. Constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 is invoked in support. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the settled legal position, as observed by the Uttarakhand High Court in Saubhagya Bhagat Vs. State of Uttarakhand and the Apex Court stating that “anticipatory bail” is a misnomer and does not imply bail 4 granted “in anticipation of arrest”, rather, it is an order mandating that a person, if arrested, shall be released on bail forthwith. Bail does not come into operation until the arrest takes place. Thus, anticipatory bail protects against unnecessary detention and preserves the right to liberty at the moment of arrest. It has been observed as under: 31. A careful perusal of the above extracted portion of para 7.1 reveals that the Constitution Bench has held that an application for anticipatory bail "could be moved by the accused at a stage before an FIR is filed or at a stage when FIR is registered but the charge sheet has not been filed and the investigation is in progress or at a stage after the investigation is concluded". It is common knowledge that upon completion of investigation, either charge sheet or final/closure report is filed. Thus, the Constitution Bench does not prohibit filing of application seeking anticipatory bail after filing of charge sheet, as it was held that such an application can be filed upon completion of investigation. Para 7.7 of the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal (supra) reiterates that such application can be filed "at the stage when the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed". Para 7.7 of the said judgment is extracted below: "We are of the opinion that the conditions can be imposed by the court concerned while granting pre-arrest bail order including limiting the operation of the order in relation to a period of time if the circumstances so warrant, more particularly the stage at which the "anticipatory bail" application is moved, namely, whether the same is at the stage before the FIR 5 is filed or at the stage when the FIR is filed and the investigation is in progress or at the stage when the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is filed." 7. Learned State counsel opposes the submission and submits that the allegations against the appellant are serious and pertain to the humiliation of a SC member in discharge of official duties in a government institution. Offences under the SC/ST Act are grave and carry a presumption against bail unless the court is satisfied that the complaint is motivated or lacks substance. The inquiry report is departmental and not a substitute for judicial determination of guilt or innocence the findings therein should not prejudice the ongoing criminal proceedings. He submits that the closure report is not yet accepted, the investigation record must be assessed independently for allegations involving offences under the special statutes. Section 18 of the SC/ST Act statutorily bars the provision of anticipatory bail except where the court finds manifest misuse or absence of prima facie case. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the FIR, documents placed on record, including the exculpatory the departmental inquiry report and the pendency of closure report acceptance, the Court is satisfied that the appellant has established a reasonable ground for grant of bail. 9. This Court notes the authoritative pronouncement from the Apex Court and Uttarakhand High Court that “anticipatory bail” is not bail granted in anticipation but an order effective only upon arrest. This sheds light on the procedural nature of the relief and underscores the 6 need to safeguard individual liberty at the threshold of custodial detention. It is crystal clear that no lucid material is found to indicate a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act that would bar the grant of bail. The right to liberty must not be unnecessarily infringed pending the final acceptance or rejection of the closure report. The liberty of the appellant deserves protection from arbitrary arrest, especially when investigation is complete and no substantive evidence supporting the offence prima facie exists. 10. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed. In the event of the appellant’s arrest in connection Crime No. 141/2025, registered at police station Patewa, District Mahasamund, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to conditions: i. The appellant shall not intimidate or tamper with the witnesses or evidence. ii. That the condition under Sub-section (2) of Section 482 BNSS shall be imposed upon the accused/appellant. This order shall remain effective till the competent court decides on the acceptance or rejection of the closure report. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.13 16:52:16 +0530